The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

The Rambling Man[edit]

Final (128/0/0); Ended 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - Co-nominated by Dweller and The Transhumanist.

We are delighted to co-nominate The Rambling Man for adminship...

Co-nomination by Dweller: Following (and during) an unsuccessful nomination under his previous username (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Budgiekiller) which ended three months ago at 69/26/11, The Rambling Man has addressed the concerns raised. He changed his username, has vastly increased his WP-space contributions (including XfD) and, in counter to a misconception that he hadn't contributed much to article writing, he has now chalked up four FAs, working in small collaborations; in each case, it's my estimation that his contribution was the largest. (FAs: 1, 2, 3, 4). There was also an unfortunate misunderstanding at the last RfA, where an ambiguous comment led The Rambling Man to think he was being criticised for not not responding to every oppose !vote, with predictable results(!)

This candidate is well known to the cricket WikiProject, as well as the football one.

The Rambling Man is a true workhorse; he's racked up a couple of dozen thousand edits, maintains his cool and works for the greater good. I know that if given the mop, he won't stop his fantastic work on developing the highest quality articles - he's highly motivated. I strongly recommend this user. Dweller --15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by The Transhumanist: I am honored to co-nominate The Rambling Man (TRM) for the mop. When I became The Rambling Man's admin coach, I told him he was already experienced enough to be an admin. Well, that was 5 months and about 20,000 edits ago. Now he's qualified to be my coach! TRM has worked dauntlessly on several facets of this encyclopedia. TRM is obviously interested in the Wikipedia project as a whole, in its success, and in the wellbeing of the Wikipedia community. He has been active in deletion discussions at WP:AfD, and in featured article development at WP:PR and WP:FAC, and in vandalism hunting (he also authored a definitive lesson on vandalism for the Virtual classroom). In each endeavor he pursues, he does so with gusto - no half-measures. Most importantly, The Rambling Man treats others the way he would like to be treated: with courtesy and kind regard. I am confident he will apply the admin tools with the same competent approach and level of thoughtfulness as he has done so throughout his involvement in Wikipedia. He will be a valuable addition to the team. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks, I accept. The Rambling Man 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As of late, my primary contributions to Wikipedia are in the fields of vandal hunting and pushing articles to featured status. This means I'd be most interested in ensuring there is never a backlog at Administrator intervention against vandalism, deleting speedy's, obviously with an emphasis on removing attack pages and page protection.
I also periodically spend whole days obsessing over articles for deletion and having improved my contributions in that area I feel that I could, slowly at first, close these as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In the months since my failed RFA I have very much enjoyed raising the profile of a number of articles, as User:Dweller has pointed out above. On a personal level I enjoyed taking Ipswich Town F.C. to featured status and just for the amount of effort involved, Adam Gilchrist, another featured article is one of my major triumphs of citation. Using the experience I've gained on the way I've started contributing to peer reviews, mainly at Wikiproject Football, which has been very pleasing. I'm also proud with my vandal hunting, most recently the job has been conducted less with VandalProof and more using manual reversion and additions of suitable warning templates.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, having spent a large proportion of my time vandal-hunting, yes I've had plenty of vitriol directed at me but it typically indicates that I'm doing my job well. The only thing that's ever caused me any real stress here was my failed RFA. I hope that my contributions in the intervening period will show that I've learned from that and improved as a contributor.

Optional question from Elkman:

4. If you became an admin, would you still have time to write and improve articles to Featured Article status? How would you balance administration against article writing?
A I'm pretty polar when it comes to my WP contributions, in other words I'll spend six hours vandal-hunting one day, I could spend six hours another day dedicated to getting an article to featured status. If I were to be handed the mop, I'd still continue to work hard on the articles but of course I'd be spending a lot of my time maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. I think that helping four articles to featured status in four months (with another at featured article candidates and one at feature list candidates right now) is pretty good going by most standards and I will admit that if I'm able to assist as an admin then that rate will be unsustainable. However, I'd like to think that my potential contributions as an admin would outweigh the reduction in my featured article output, but that's for the community to decide!

Optional question from Naconkantari:

5. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A This is a common question here at Request for adminship and, as yet, there seems to be contrasting consensus as to the correct answer. From a personal perspective, I'd be reticent, both implicitly or explicitly, to ignore all rules, and I've yet to encounter a situation where this process is appropriate. Some may argue that quick responses to situations that endanger Wikipedia validate the concept and some argue against that. I believe that if I ever ignored all rules, it would be purely related to my obligation to protect or enhance the project.

Optional question from MacGyverMagic:

6. It appears you're overqualified for the job. Can you name any weaknesses in your editing skills? - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A I'll happily admit that I am no master of the wiki markup language yet. I do perform several gnome-like tasks for a few fellow editors in some articles (like the citations for Norwich City F.C.) but I often find myself referring to the help pages. I also don't use the preview button enough, but that's something I'm working on all the time.

Optional question from bibliomaniac15:

7. Although this doesn't quite relate to this RFA, what's your secret to creating a featured article?
A: Well perhaps the first thing I should do is point you to this, soon to be published article which User:Dweller has created as a result of our joint experiences of pushing four articles (hopefully six soon) to featured status in a matter of months. Secondly, I consider that in most cases I stay in my comfort zone and write about things I know. Adam Gilchrist is a perfect example, featuring on the front page today, with the Cricket World Cup Final, he's just broken a few records and during the FA drive with WP:CRICKET we opted for him. Thirdly, and most importantly, be persistent, ask questions, respond postively to criticism. You have to understand policy and the manual of style, learn WP:DASH (for those sports articles!), WP:CITE and WP:LEAD, and finally get a grip on image rules and regulations. I hope some of that helps, but I'm more than happy to answer this further, either here or outside this RFA. The Rambling Man 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Yeah, I feel pretty strongly about this sort of thing, I believe that we all have an obligation to correctly and adequately source any assertions of fact, particularly when dealing with biographical articles. I would enforce this official policy to the letter I think, but I would endeavour to discuss the matter with the editors who are re-inserting such material rather than go ahead and warn them straight away. It's clear than 99% of editors are unaware of the many WP policies so I'd see it initially as an opportunity to spread the word. Of course, should the editor persist in his/her behaviour, I'd head down the warning template/block route. The Rambling Man 10:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

9. Is assuming good faith an important guideline, and if so, how would you apply this guideline when dealing with newcomers or vandals?--U.S.A. cubed 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A I believe this guideline is one of the most important across all of Wikipedia and I endeavour to apply it to everything I do. In particular, with newcomers I will strive to point them in the right direction if they make erroneous edits and try to encourage them. As for vandals, assuming good faith here is often challenging but the way I apply the policy in this case is to use my own judgement to determine whether a vandal's edits really are just test edits in which case I'll go gently with them, or a calculated attack on WP in which case I will escalate my warnings to them more rapidly. I'd like to think that I treat everyone here the way I would wish to be treated myself. The Rambling Man 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom and as member, cricket WikiProject --Dweller 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - but of course! :) - Alison ☺ 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Overqualifed. :) – Riana ऋ 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I nom'd TRM myself a while back, however he had the wisdom to decline, feeling he wasn't ready. He's an excellent user in every way. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support (admin vandal fighter). alphachimp 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Troppus gnorts. A fabulous candidate, my pleasure to support (again). Best of luck! Majorly (hot!) 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. It's time. Good luck. YechielMan 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: Looks to be overqualified. Good luck! .V. [Talk|Email] 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Duh. No-brainer. Knows what he's doing. Moreschi Talk 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support excellent candidate.-- danntm T C 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Pleasure to work with, will undoubtedly make a good admin. Oldelpaso 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Excellent contribution to WikiProject Football Dave101→talk→contributions • 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support from my limited interaction with him, great candidate. Pascal.Tesson 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Concerns of the previous nomination in regards to lack of encyclopedic contributions were overwhelmingly addressed. I hold full confidence in this candidate. Michaelas10 17:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Great job addressing previous concerns; excellent candidate. Xoloz 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support:WoW!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support — need I leave a justification? ;) good luck ~ AGK 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. We have Wikipedia:List of administrators. Can we create Wikipedia:List of editors who aren't sysops, but who we think are sysops, and who might as well be sysops because of everything they do? I think it would help avoid a lot of confusion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    lol :)))))) --dario vet (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support–Been doing great work at WP:CRIC. Well-deserved! Well done!--Eva bd 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Clear need for tools with no chance of abuse. - auburnpilot talk 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support. I was sure you were one. Way overdue RFA. -Mschel 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support a very valuable editor who will do even more great work if given the tools. Gwernol 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support of course... Outstanding Wikipedian. κaτaʟavenoTC 17:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Unnecessary pile-on support. John Reaves (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Very strong support ^demon[omg plz] 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. This user is long overdue. Sounds clean. Sr13 (T|C) ER 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I feel much more comfortable supporting this time than I did before. Agent 86 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support after a couple of edit conflicts trying to edit this RfA. User looks very good to me. Adambro 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - not enough category talk edits! Just kidding. Support, obviously. Walton Need some help? 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strongest possible support - an extremely competant editor, I completely trust the candidates judgement. He should be an administrator already. Experience is key to being an administrator and The Rambling Man has certainly got that. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support in agreement with Black Falcon. We need that category. :) Acalamari 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - as co-nom. The Transhumanist 18:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. All my experience with this user has been positive.--ragesoss 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Maybe even overqualified for the job... --Valley2city₪‽ 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support - (ec)Ahh.. I thought you were already an Admin..Give him the tools so that he can start building Wiki(and repairing it in most cases)..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Full support- Brilliant editor, always thought he actually was an admin. I believe he deserves the tools. Retiono Virginian 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Looks good... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support No duh... --Random Say it here! 19:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support. - Get to it. -- Pastordavid 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. If you want the demotion take it! Pedro |  Chat  19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Top man - deserves this. Mattythewhite 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Seems fine, plus per some of the folks who opposed the last RfA. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - no problems, and I like his response to my question. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Solid experience, good attitude, clear answers. All round good bloke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - good contributor who is very helpful to other users and knows that the site is here for the benefit of the readers, which is what an admin should be like. --BlackJack | talk page 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Looks great all-around; good luck! Jmlk17 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support A very good contributor and an excellent member of the cricket project.--THUGCHILDz 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support John254 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I feel confident in this user to mop wisely... — Scientizzle 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Definately a good admin here. Captain panda 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support - Strong support. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Allman Brothers Support. I hope your name is in reference to the song...but if it isn't...well don't let that happen. Anyway, TRM is a fantastic editor on Wikipedia, and I think he's demonstrated a thorough knowledge of policy and he will do a fine job as an administrator. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Excellent work.--Húsönd 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Supports -- zzuuzz(talk) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Very, very much so. Daniel Bryant 02:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support due to a very excellent contribution record. I trust The Rambling Man with the tools, and sincerely doubt he'd ever abuse them. The changes made since the last RfA contributed heavily to my decision, as well. I think The Rambling Man will be an asset as an admin here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per all of the above. Excellent contributor. It's overdue. --Shirahadasha 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support —Moondyne 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support His record shows him to be an excellent editor and I'm sure he'd do a tremendous job. Nick mallory 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. On review of the candidate's participation with the Football and Cricket WikiProjects, and his recent article talk edits, I'm satisfied that this editor has sufficient collaborative experience to meet with my expectations for an administrator. I am therefore pleased to support his candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Woohoo!! ... *ahem* - sorry! :) - Alison ☺ 05:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - yep, the FAs are a big plus :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support -- LeCourT:C 06:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. >Radiant< 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support Breaking the terms of my wiki-break to come along and show my support for this excellent candidate. Gone from strength to strength since the last one. – B.hotep u/t• 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support Absolutely, should be an asset to the admin team. —Anas talk? 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support--MONGO 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Terence 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - An excellent, hard-working user. HornetMike 11:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support For extreme insanity, and per last time. (Still can't believe you're not already an admin!) ;-) · AndonicO Talk 11:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Excellent work all round, as far as I can see. Johnlp 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. strong Support I somehow doubt another voice in support is needed, given that you've even managed to win over Kelly Martin & have a current count of 71-0-0, but you're one of the best around —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  72. Support has the attitude, very helpful, everything an admin needs. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Boring. —AldeBaer 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Yeap-- Nick t 14:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. support in common to my evaluation criterions __ ABF __ 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. "I thought you already were one" Support. This is destined for the list! Kntrabssi 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Only positive experiences of this user. The JPStalk to me 17:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Experienced, responsive to suggestions and constructive criticism. JavaTenor 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Definitely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support as per currently unanimous consensus. No reason I can see not to do so. *** Crotalus *** 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per everyone and everything. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support: User seems very experienced and plenty of edits. Looks very willing to help the project. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - A fine user since day one. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support -Like last time. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support -- Zleitzen(talk) 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support In my few dealings with this editor he's been very calm, reasonable, and diligent. I support him fully. Quadzilla99 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support You deserve it! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť Talk to me or Need help? 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - An excellent candidate, well experienced and has made some excellent contributions on making articles reach FA status and helping in WikiProjects. Camaron1 | Chris 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support- brilliant editor, and a noob is saying this. Eaomatrix 11:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Implement the reverse snowball clause, somebody, please! Evilclown93 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Kelly supported you? Auto-support then.--Wizardman 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Naconkantari 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. S - Nothing wrong, all positives for me. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Yes. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support He would benefit wikipedia a lot if he became an administrator.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Need another three for the ton approval for the candidate.--Alf melmac 11:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, noting resiliency and teamwork. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Sound on BLP --Docg 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support but I do fear that his editing will be affected. Tintin 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. -- Y not? 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. He's not afraid to refer to the help pages, which is always a good thing. Appears level-headed. My only fear is that his FA production will suffer. Mgm|(talk) 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Qapla' Matthew 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support as before. -- Renesis (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. I voted for you last time, and I haven't changed my mind. Coemgenus 22:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support.--MariusM 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. --dario vet (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support as per all the above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Great user. utcursch | talk 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support- looks good. WjBscribe 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. He isn't one already? Support. Jonathunder 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support; surprised he wasn't one already. As an aside, thanks for de-vandalizing my user pages. Cool Hand Luke 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support - A very good candidate indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Answer is looking good. I don't sense doubt in this one for WP:AGF.--U.S.A. cubed 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Not wishing to pile-on anything more than a couple of dittos to above and my tick of support.--VS talk 08:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support without a doubt, one of the best vandal fighters on the site. Great work. ~ Arjun 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support of course! Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Good Answers. I'm sure he will Assume good faith and be bold, but not reckless. PxMa 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Should have been made admin along time ago.--Dacium 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support my oppose last time was on the basis of a paucity in article space contribution. Since then, The Rambling Man's has made droves of impressive article space contributions, including to the FA's as listed in the nom. Well done! Hope you enjoy adminship! -- Samir 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Unquestionably. El_C 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - i supported him for the first RfA, and reading over his re-nom, it looks like he tripled his efforts. i'm quite taken aback by his experience and his motivation. JoeSmack Talk 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support: I thought he was one. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - I have no problem with "pile-on-support-votes", clearly. Philippe 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. ElinorD (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 11:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

No obvious problems; support withheld pending an endorsement from a WikiProject per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to support. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that his long-term interaction at WP:WPF, where he is extremely well-respected (in part due to being insightful and friendly, and in part to writing and commenting on a load of football (soccer) F*C's), would meet this criteria and what I understand to be the logic behind it (collaboration and interaction). Maybe I'm totally off the mark, but oh well, worth a try. Daniel Bryant 04:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:CRIC as well. Daniel Bryant 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category